John Kerry: Nice wheels



Mark Hickey wrote:

> Spin it as you will, Bush earned a Bachelors in history from Yale and
> an MBA from Harvard, getting better grades along the way than the
> "intellectual" he ran against in 2000.


Shrub had everything stacked in his favor by others - not very impressive.

--
Tom Sherman – Quad City Area
 
>Tim McNamara [email protected] Writes:

><[email protected]> writes:
>
>> If you believe that Shrub would have been admitted into Yale and
>> Harvard solely on his academic abilities, you are obviously rather
>> misguided.

>
>As much as I despise GWB and his policies, think he ought to be
>impeached and run out of town, I don't think you have any proof to
>back up these assertions. Yale and Harvard are not going to admit
>drooling idiots into their schools, no matter who their parents are.
>Well, unless they are members of a secret cabal- that might get you
>in.


Skull and Bones?
>
 
Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:

>JP wrote:
>
>> ...
>> Bush was elected president. Bush is stupid. Therefore, at least one
>> person who gets elected president *is* stupid....

>
>Does it count when the margin of victory in the election is 5-4 in the
>US Supreme Court?


Think of the uproar you would be making today had the shoe been on the
other foot (Bush losing Florida by a few hundred votes), and Bush had
succeeded in changing the election laws AFTER the voting took place,
to use unprecedented and ambiguous standards to "re-count" the ballots
to his advantage. You know, like Gore wanted. Heh. Your knickers
would be so twisted you wouldn't be able to inhale. ;-)

Let's not forget that the Florida circuit judge (a Democrat, BTW)
agreed with the majority in the Supreme Court that the counting had
been done properly (and properly and properly and...)?

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame
 
carlfogel wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 16:47:22 GMT, Weisse Luft <usenet-
> [email protected]> wrote:
> >This thread is fraught with errors in logic. Please see this site to
> >learn about these errors and become better writers:
> >
> >http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/http://www.nizkor.org/feature-
> >s/fallacies/

> Dear Mr. Spock,
> I fear that logic is not the issue in this thread. You might as well
> suggest that people writing love-letters pay closer attention to
> practical matters.
> Lewis Carroll




Fascinating. You start off with obivious ad hominum attacks, completely
ignoring the fact this is rec.bicycles.tech. Possibly you have been
drawn into the fray from the extensive length of this thread.

Such is the problem of the neo-socialists. They think with their hearts
and feel with their brains.



--
 
Weisse Luft <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> Despite your protracted analysis, why is John Kerry always acting like a
> spoiled brat? To wit, why was it a Secret Service agent that spoiled his
> snow boarding and why did John Kerry make that awful comment on GWB's
> MTB crash?


In what way is he acting like a spoiled brat? He made a couple of
jokes. Anyone ever rib you about crashing your bike? I don't know for
sure because I wasn't there, but the cracks he made have a similar
tone to what we see on any given group ride.

I guess that's exactly the same as launching smear campaigns against
anyone who criticizes you, or blowing the cover of a CIA agent to get
revenge on her husband. Yeah, the same.

JP
 
Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >JP wrote:
> >
> >> ...
> >> Bush was elected president. Bush is stupid. Therefore, at least one
> >> person who gets elected president *is* stupid....

> >
> >Does it count when the margin of victory in the election is 5-4 in the
> >US Supreme Court?

>
> Think of the uproar you would be making today had the shoe been on the
> other foot (Bush losing Florida by a few hundred votes), and Bush had
> succeeded in changing the election laws AFTER the voting took place,
> to use unprecedented and ambiguous standards to "re-count" the ballots
> to his advantage. You know, like Gore wanted. Heh. Your knickers
> would be so twisted you wouldn't be able to inhale. ;-)
>
> Let's not forget that the Florida circuit judge (a Democrat, BTW)
> agreed with the majority in the Supreme Court that the counting had
> been done properly (and properly and properly and...)?


This is a complete load of ****. I could go on for several thousand
words but in a nutshell these are the facts:

1. Many legal votes under existing FL law were *never* counted.
2. Many illegal votes under existing FL law *were* counted when they
came from Bush-leaning counties, and were discarded if they came from
Gore counties.
3. Many FL counties did not recount as required by FL law but simply
recertified the first count.
4. The worst error rates were not on the punched ballots as most
people believe, they were the optical-scanned ballots. Bush counties
had overvote error-feedback turned on, Gore counties generally had the
same protection turned off. Not surprisingly, the counties with the
overvote protection turned on had low error rates and those with it
turned off had the highest error rates.
5. The SCOTUS did not say the votes had been counted properly, it said
that the recounting procedure was not consistent from county to county
therefore you should just quit trying, an argument so absurd that no
justice had the courage to put his or her name on the written decision
as the author.

The stuff about "counted and counted" is a lie, but one that most of
the US public believe is true. If all the legal votes in FL had been
counted and all the illegal votes discarded, Gore would have won
Florida. And that's not an opinion, that's a fact.

It's also a fact that the Bush 2000 campaign was recently fined for
illegal funding of the FL recount effort. Maybe if they had not had
all that illegal money (several times what was available to the Gore
campaign) they would not have been in a position to hide the truth
from the American people when it could have counted.

JP
 
Jp wrote:
> Weisse Luft <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
> > Despite your protracted analysis, why is John Kerry always acting like
> > a spoiled brat? To wit, why was it a Secret Service agent that spoiled
> > his snow boarding and why did John Kerry make that awful comment on
> > GWB's MTB crash?

> In what way is he acting like a spoiled brat? He made a couple of jokes.
> Anyone ever rib you about crashing your bike? I don't know for sure
> because I wasn't there, but the cracks he made have a similar tone to
> what we see on any given group ride.
> I guess that's exactly the same as launching smear campaigns against
> anyone who criticizes you, or blowing the cover of a CIA agent to get
> revenge on her husband. Yeah, the same.
> JP




Kerry was quite concerned ex post facto over the fact his comments
could have been considered on the record. His friends in the media kept
them quiet.

Oh, so we know about Valerie Plame? CIA deep cover agents are known
only to themselves and their handlers. Even the DD of the CIA does not
know who is deep cover. Nor does he need to know. Ms. Plame's cover was
blown long before Novack et al made an issue of it and it was released
by her husband.

Now, are there any other strawmen you wish to use?



--
 
On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 19:16:52 GMT, Weisse Luft
<[email protected]> wrote:

>carlfogel wrote:
> > On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 16:47:22 GMT, Weisse Luft <usenet-
> > [email protected]> wrote:
> > >This thread is fraught with errors in logic. Please see this site to
> > >learn about these errors and become better writers:
> > >
> > >http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/http://www.nizkor.org/feature-
> > >s/fallacies/

> > Dear Mr. Spock,
> > I fear that logic is not the issue in this thread. You might as well
> > suggest that people writing love-letters pay closer attention to
> > practical matters.
> > Lewis Carroll

>
>
>
>Fascinating. You start off with obivious ad hominum attacks, completely
>ignoring the fact this is rec.bicycles.tech. Possibly you have been
>drawn into the fray from the extensive length of this thread.
>
>Such is the problem of the neo-socialists. They think with their hearts
>and feel with their brains.


Dear Mr. Spock,

Whether you meant "obvious" or "oblivious," it's fascinating
to discover that neo-socialists are infesting the area. Do
you have anyone in mind, or was it just something tossed out
at random.

Worf
 
Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> [email protected] (JP) wrote:
>
> >Hardly anyone ever seems to complain about affirmative action for
> >dumbasses- the kids that grew up with every conceivable advantage,
> >accomplished nothing and then went on to an Ivy League school (where
> >they also accomplished nothing) based on a preference derived from
> >their parents' wealth and power.

>
> So, just to make sure I understand how this works...
>
> IF you had been "unlucky" enough to have a famous parent or two
> (business tychoon, polititian, poet, artist, bicycle racer), and you
> then accomplished whatever it is you've accomplished in your own life
> to this point, it should be ridiculed and minimized... and wouldn't be
> as valuable as it is now.
>
> Did I get that right?


Not exactly. Say you're born with a silver spoon: what did you do with
it?

There's no question that Bush could not have gotten into Yale based on
his own accomplishments. He's a dumbass.

At least many of the people who are born with the wealth, power and
educational advantages that Bush had go ahead to make the best of it-
the only things that Bush has accomplished was to make a mess out of
almost everything he touched, and anything he did that was successful
was always dependent on his Daddy's power to fix things. He has done
NOTHING positive on his own.

It was pretty predictable- he will leave the US just like he left his
businesses and Texas, in a mess.

JP
 
Jp wrote:
> Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
> > [email protected] (JP) wrote:
> >
> >...

> It was pretty predictable- he will leave the US just like he left his
> businesses and Texas, in a mess.
> JP




Texas enjoyed the excellent leadership of George Bush during his two
terms as governor. Look up his success in FINALLY cleaning the brown
fields and restoring these areas to their pristine conditions. And you
thought he was anti-environment. Despite what the leftists claim, the
Texas environment got BETTER, its just the standards became tighter
under the Clean Air Act so some areas fell into non-attainment.

Oh yes, the Texas Rangers did just fine.

Get your story straight.



--
 
Weisse Luft wrote:

> Jp wrote:
> > Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:<[email protected]>...
> > > [email protected] (JP) wrote:
> > >
> > >...

> > It was pretty predictable- he will leave the US just like he left his
> > businesses and Texas, in a mess.
> > JP

>
>
>
> Texas enjoyed the excellent leadership of George Bush during his two
> terms as governor. Look up his success in FINALLY cleaning the brown
> fields and restoring these areas to their pristine conditions. And you
> thought he was anti-environment. Despite what the leftists claim, the
> Texas environment got BETTER, its just the standards became tighter
> under the Clean Air Act so some areas fell into non-attainment.
>
> Oh yes, the Texas Rangers did just fine....


Yes, the value of the Texas Rangers increased greatly when a new stadium
was built with taxpayer subsidies.

Does anyone else think it was a bit odd that Shrub was made managing
partner of the Rangers despite purchasing less than 2% of the team? Even
more odd was the other investors granting Shrub over 10% of the proceeds
when the team was sold, despite his less than 2% investment.

I wish I had investment opportunities like that!

--
Tom Sherman – Quad City Area
 
JP wrote:

> Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
>>Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>JP wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>...
>>>>Bush was elected president. Bush is stupid. Therefore, at least one
>>>>person who gets elected president *is* stupid....
>>>
>>>Does it count when the margin of victory in the election is 5-4 in the
>>>US Supreme Court?

>>
>>Think of the uproar you would be making today had the shoe been on the
>>other foot (Bush losing Florida by a few hundred votes), and Bush had
>>succeeded in changing the election laws AFTER the voting took place,
>>to use unprecedented and ambiguous standards to "re-count" the ballots
>>to his advantage. You know, like Gore wanted. Heh. Your knickers
>>would be so twisted you wouldn't be able to inhale. ;-)
>>
>>Let's not forget that the Florida circuit judge (a Democrat, BTW)
>>agreed with the majority in the Supreme Court that the counting had
>>been done properly (and properly and properly and...)?

>
>
> This is a complete load of ****. I could go on for several thousand
> words but in a nutshell these are the facts:
>
> 1. Many legal votes under existing FL law were *never* counted.
> 2. Many illegal votes under existing FL law *were* counted when they
> came from Bush-leaning counties, and were discarded if they came from
> Gore counties.
> 3. Many FL counties did not recount as required by FL law but simply
> recertified the first count.
> 4. The worst error rates were not on the punched ballots as most
> people believe, they were the optical-scanned ballots. Bush counties
> had overvote error-feedback turned on, Gore counties generally had the
> same protection turned off. Not surprisingly, the counties with the
> overvote protection turned on had low error rates and those with it
> turned off had the highest error rates.
> 5. The SCOTUS did not say the votes had been counted properly, it said
> that the recounting procedure was not consistent from county to county
> therefore you should just quit trying, an argument so absurd that no
> justice had the courage to put his or her name on the written decision
> as the author.
>
> The stuff about "counted and counted" is a lie, but one that most of
> the US public believe is true. If all the legal votes in FL had been
> counted and all the illegal votes discarded, Gore would have won
> Florida. And that's not an opinion, that's a fact.
>
> It's also a fact that the Bush 2000 campaign was recently fined for
> illegal funding of the FL recount effort. Maybe if they had not had
> all that illegal money (several times what was available to the Gore
> campaign) they would not have been in a position to hide the truth
> from the American people when it could have counted.


To add to the above, there was the effort made to illegally prevent as
many people as possible from traditionally Democratic voting districts.
Secretary of State Harris and ChoicePoint removed thousands of potential
voters for felony convictions they did not have. Additionally, the rate
of rejected/spoiled ballots was much higher in traditionally Democratic
voting precincts than in traditionally Republican voting precincts.

Face it, the 2000 Florida election was stolen for Shrub by his brother's
political appointees, and the US Supreme Court approved the theft on a
purely partisan basis.


--
Tom Sherman – Quad City Area
 
George W. Bush was smart enough to get himself elected president.
Q.E.D.

You probably think Al Gore, another scion of a prominent political
family and who like GWB is Harvard educated is "smarter" than GWB.
But if Gore's so smart, why couldn't he carry his own home state in
the 2000 election? For all the whining about the Florida situation,
if Gore had only won his home state, he'd be president. If you
aren't smart enough to carry your own home state, you don't deserve to
be president.
 
Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:

>JP wrote:
>
>> Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote ...


>>>Think of the uproar you would be making today had the shoe been on the
>>>other foot (Bush losing Florida by a few hundred votes), and Bush had
>>>succeeded in changing the election laws AFTER the voting took place,
>>>to use unprecedented and ambiguous standards to "re-count" the ballots
>>>to his advantage. You know, like Gore wanted. Heh. Your knickers
>>>would be so twisted you wouldn't be able to inhale. ;-)
>>>
>>>Let's not forget that the Florida circuit judge (a Democrat, BTW)
>>>agreed with the majority in the Supreme Court that the counting had
>>>been done properly (and properly and properly and...)?

>>
>> This is a complete load of ****. I could go on for several thousand
>> words but in a nutshell these are the facts:
>>
>> 1. Many legal votes under existing FL law were *never* counted.


Citation?

>> 2. Many illegal votes under existing FL law *were* counted when they
>> came from Bush-leaning counties, and were discarded if they came from
>> Gore counties.


Nonsense. You're saying that Democrats conspired against Gore. Heh
heh heh.

>> 3. Many FL counties did not recount as required by FL law but simply
>> recertified the first count.


Citation?

>> 4. The worst error rates were not on the punched ballots as most
>> people believe, they were the optical-scanned ballots. Bush counties
>> had overvote error-feedback turned on, Gore counties generally had the
>> same protection turned off. Not surprisingly, the counties with the
>> overvote protection turned on had low error rates and those with it
>> turned off had the highest error rates.
>> 5. The SCOTUS did not say the votes had been counted properly, it said
>> that the recounting procedure was not consistent from county to county
>> therefore you should just quit trying, an argument so absurd that no
>> justice had the courage to put his or her name on the written decision
>> as the author.


Fact is, all the counties had procedures, which they followed. Those
procedures existed prior to the election - you'd be turning purple had
Bush "come from behind" by changing those procedures AFTER the
election. Don't even try to deny it (I notice you didn't comment on
that aspect of my previous post).

>> The stuff about "counted and counted" is a lie, but one that most of
>> the US public believe is true. If all the legal votes in FL had been
>> counted and all the illegal votes discarded, Gore would have won
>> Florida. And that's not an opinion, that's a fact.


Not true. Read up on the recount - only by counting votes in
"creative new ways" were the independent examiners able to come up
with a scenario in which Gore might have won. The fact that no one
counted votes that way previously is all you have to know about how
"legal" that would have been.

>> It's also a fact that the Bush 2000 campaign was recently fined for
>> illegal funding of the FL recount effort. Maybe if they had not had
>> all that illegal money (several times what was available to the Gore
>> campaign) they would not have been in a position to hide the truth
>> from the American people when it could have counted.


You got that from AlGoreConspiracy.com, right? LOL.

>To add to the above, there was the effort made to illegally prevent as
>many people as possible from traditionally Democratic voting districts.
>Secretary of State Harris and ChoicePoint removed thousands of potential
>voters for felony convictions they did not have.


There were errors in the roles, and it wasn't centered in
"traditionally Democratic voting districts", although it's absolutely
true that most felons vote Democrat. Heh.

>Additionally, the rate
>of rejected/spoiled ballots was much higher in traditionally Democratic
>voting precincts than in traditionally Republican voting precincts.


You're right - people in traditionally Republican voting precints can
follow directions better. That's not in question.

>Face it, the 2000 Florida election was stolen for Shrub by his brother's
>political appointees, and the US Supreme Court approved the theft on a
>purely partisan basis.


Face it - Gore lost (and lost, and lost). You guys are SUCH sore
losers. Again - if the scenario was exactly opposite, and Bush had
gotten the methodology to interpret votes changed AFTER the election
to eke out a win by counting overvotes and dimpled chads and other
abberations, you'd be inconsolable. Go ahead and try to deny that.
You can't, but that doesn't stop you from thinking it would be
"justice" if YOUR guy did it. LOL.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame
 
[email protected] (JP) wrote:

>There's no question that Bush could not have gotten into Yale based on
>his own accomplishments. He's a dumbass.


Do you have any idea how hopelessly naive it makes you look to say
that a man who has achieved the most important and powerful position
in the world is a "dumbass"?

You mainstream types are so predictable - got the network mantra down
to a tee. ;-)

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame
 
> [email protected] (Eagle Jackson) Writes:

>You probably think Al Gore, another scion of a prominent political
>family and who like GWB is Harvard educated is "smarter" than GWB.


I don't know if I would say smarter. Perhaps, it's just that he has an
adequate command of the english language which makes him (and most everyone
else) seem more intelligent than GWB. And as we all know, he invented the
internet. Since when did George W attend Harvard? GWB attended Yale like his
dad and grandfather.
 
[email protected] (VCopelan) wrote:

>> [email protected] (Eagle Jackson) Writes:

>
>>You probably think Al Gore, another scion of a prominent political
>>family and who like GWB is Harvard educated is "smarter" than GWB.

>
>I don't know if I would say smarter. Perhaps, it's just that he has an
>adequate command of the english language which makes him (and most everyone
>else) seem more intelligent than GWB. And as we all know, he invented the
>internet. Since when did George W attend Harvard? GWB attended Yale like his
>dad and grandfather.


Bush got a Bachelors in History from Yale, then went on an got his MBA
from Harvard (this while Gore was flunking out of divinity school, but
that's another thread). ;-)

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame
 
I think that there are different sorts of abilities. GW has the
ability to make small talk and be personable. He can see you at a bar
and chat with you about baseball and charm you. He can easily do well
in small gatherings, social groups, crack jokes, wink eyes, be
confident, etc. People that have met him briefly, including my wife,
say that he is very personable and can quickly engage others into
small talk and conversations about sports, the weather, etc.

On the other hand, nobody would question the GW has tremendous
difficulty expressing himself when making longer than two minutes
presentations, or when he is asked to respond to specific questions
that require elaborate answers and usage of elaborate sentences with
broad vocabulary. I think that there are two possibilities for him
having difficulty at this. One is lack of reading which will prevent
him from having an adequate vocabulary. The other is that he may read
plenty, but he has some kind of a processing or learning disability
that prevents him from either retaining or processing certain type of
vocabulary.

So, in conclusion. If we accept that there are different types of
abilites (or smarts). GW does have the abiltiy to make small party
talk. I don't have this ability at all. On the other hand e doesn't
have good vocabulary processing and public speaking skills. The
question is why has he had difficulty developing this?

Bill Clinton, Ross Perot, for example, are both very good small
talkers and a good public speakers. William Buckley is also pretty
good at both but his small talk is limited by his pompousness. Reagan
was very good at small talk and at using limited language skills in a
broader range of topics. While his vocabulary was limited his oratory
skills could compensate for this limitation. He had the ability to
manipulate a small range of vocabulary to multiple situations or to
subtly change topics. These are of course my opinions. Other examles?

Andres.

[email protected] (VCopelan) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > [email protected] (Eagle Jackson) Writes:

>
> >You probably think Al Gore, another scion of a prominent political
> >family and who like GWB is Harvard educated is "smarter" than GWB.

>
> I don't know if I would say smarter. Perhaps, it's just that he has an
> adequate command of the english language which makes him (and most everyone
> else) seem more intelligent than GWB. And as we all know, he invented the
> internet. Since when did George W attend Harvard? GWB attended Yale like his
> dad and grandfather.